Erie Warrior wrote:Is it possible these people are too smart for their own good?

The stats look at events in relative isolation- but don't consider them in full context. Let's say you lay down a bunt with your #3 guy. The inning results in one run.

You keep a one run lead into the 8th inning. But your setup man went out to a bar the night before and got his eye mashed in. You have to throw a guy who you normally wouldn't. Said guy gives up 2 runs and you lose by 1.

The stats would support the "sac bunts don't lead to more wins" idea, when in reality is was because of some D-bag name Tanner running his mouth at 2am.

Or is there an algorithm that takes into account meat-headedness?

I get what you're saying. The win expectancy tool at The Hardball Times can't take into account how good/bad a team's bullpen is, how good/bad the opposition offense is (though it does include "run environment"), and other variables. It's a general assessment taking into account years of research.

Overall, my issue isn't wholly with the bunt. It's with who was bunting. Keep in mind that he popped the first attempt up. If the catcher catches that ball, then it's truly a wasted out from your #3 hitter. Granted, at it's core, it's no different than striking out or popping up on the infield, but it's the principle of giving up an out.

I posted the numbers. The sac bunt would have raised the win expectancy .0042%. A base hit (to load the bases)/walk raises it by 15% and a strikeout/fly out lowers it by 11% and the worst-case scenario, a GIDP, lowers it by 22%. I didn't add this last night, but a base hit to tie the game raises it by 19%.

If it was a successful sacrifice, it does very little to help your chances of winning the game...but it doesn't hurt them either. Gillaspie butchered the play, so it worked out better than it should have.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

skatingtripods wrote:Whatever you say. A lot of people in front offices across the league would vehemently disagree with you.

The thing is that front office types use advanced analytics to make roster moves, organizational changes. The field manager and players are making the calls during the actual games. I'm quite sure that most managers aren't stat-heads who use advanced metrics to make their decisions, and they sure aren't taking phone calls in the middle of an inning from someone staring at a computer screen telling them not have have Kipnis bunt because it lowers their win percentage by some very small margin. Most managers are former players, and they manage the games the way they played and learned from the managers they played with. Are they more in tune with statistics today then managers of the past, sure, but they still make gut calls on the field based on experience, instinct and intuition. That's never going to change.

Baseball is a stat-heavy sport, but it's still a funny game. Things don't always work out the way they should on paper or on a computer screen. Just ask the Blue Jays and Washington Nationals, two teams many expected to dominate the regular season and meet in the World Series.

1Perry wrote:I'm reading between the lines and maybe part of it was just the poisoned atmosphere when Francona left Boston but he did take a dig at the Boston front office for their stats stance.

Seems that maybe they didn't like when he would call for the bunt when the stats said otherwise. I doubt there would have been complaints though when like last night the outcome was a win.

The argument that going with the numbers is certainly valid but I like having a manager willing to go with the gut feeling on occasion.

BOS was last in sac bunts in 2011, second last in 2010, second last in 2009, T-third last in 2008, second last in 2007. I'm sure I could go on. The park factor and the lineup construction have a lot to do with not bunting at Fenway, but I don't think Francona's a big fan of the sacrifice bunt. The Indians have the fourth-fewest this season.

Francona's a baseball guy. He understands the stats and believes in them, but won't be controlled by them. You really can't argue with Boston's success (sans last season) in taking a sabermetric approach in the front office. Notice how they're right back up near the top again this season. Watch how quickly the Cubs will turn it around with Theo Epstein, who was seen as a stunning hire in Boston when Billy Beane turned down the job over a decade ago. That worked out pretty well.

I think Francona wants to leave it up to the players and not the numbers. I think it's been his downfall with the bullpen on multiple occasions this year, but he's a big believer in relationships with the players, so he shows confidence in them whenever he can.

I've looked at it from both sides this season. I lean towards the numbers side, but I also try to understand his logic and the logic of others.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

1Perry wrote:I'm reading between the lines and maybe part of it was just the poisoned atmosphere when Francona left Boston but he did take a dig at the Boston front office for their stats stance.

Seems that maybe they didn't like when he would call for the bunt when the stats said otherwise. I doubt there would have been complaints though when like last night the outcome was a win.

The argument that going with the numbers is certainly valid but I like having a manager willing to go with the gut feeling on occasion.

BOS was last in sac bunts in 2011, second last in 2010, second last in 2009, T-third last in 2008, second last in 2007. I'm sure I could go on. The park factor and the lineup construction have a lot to do with not bunting at Fenway, but I don't think Francona's a big fan of the sacrifice bunt. The Indians have the fourth-fewest this season.

Francona's a baseball guy. He understands the stats and believes in them, but won't be controlled by them.

That's all I was saying. I'm not arguing whether the bunt should or shouldn't have been called for. I'm just glad he is willing to forget the numbers when he thinks it's a good idea.

As I've said, while I certainly dont enjoy the idea of every action in baseball having a number tied to it, I still like the occasion argument from you as to why it makes sense.

Erie Warrior wrote:Is it possible these people are too smart for their own good?

The stats look at events in relative isolation- but don't consider them in full context. Let's say you lay down a bunt with your #3 guy. The inning results in one run.

You keep a one run lead into the 8th inning. But your setup man went out to a bar the night before and got his eye mashed in. You have to throw a guy who you normally wouldn't. Said guy gives up 2 runs and you lose by 1.

The stats would support the "sac bunts don't lead to more wins" idea, when in reality is was because of some D-bag name Tanner running his mouth at 2am.

When trailing in the late innings it's more palatable to me but I think there's more to it than just the inning, score and outs. I think you have to consider who's due up afterward, who they'll be facing, and a myriad of other variables including the defense you're playing against and a million other things.

Is their catcher a sieve like Santana? Is the pitcher splitter/sinker heavy? Is Cabbie in a mental and physical funk or locked in? What about the guy hitting after him should they choose to walk Cabby? Is the IBB even a consideration?

I think yesterday was about as 50/50 as it gets with a very slight lean toward bunting there. You've scored but one run in 6 innings in a 2-1 game. It wasn't 11-10, etc.

I didn't have an issue with it but I wouldn't have had an issue had Kipnis swung the bat either.

I know that's about as non-committal as it can get, but that does consider a load of variables.

ETA- Keep in mind these guys have bought into a 1-25 philosophy as well. Whereby each guy is no bigger or smaller than the next guy. Kipnis is still a younger player whose embraced that philosophy and who is also capable of bunting fairly well and putting pressure on a defense with the bunt.

I think you're misinterpretting what the stat guys are saying about sac bunts, EW. They aren't going back through game logs and recording how many times a team sac bunted and whether that team won or not. That would be pointless and pretty worthless. They are correlating it to runs and run expectancy.

In baseball every possible thing that can happen has or will happen. The only way that these stats are usefull IS in isolation. Sometimes the wrong decision ends with a good result or a good decision ends with abad result. The stats are telling you that most times, through the history of the game, X followed Y. The good teams and managers aren't going to go against the expected results often and expect to win over the long haul.

In blackjack, you can hit on 15 with the dealer showing 16 and draw a 6, but that doesn't mean it wa sa good decision.

Like 1Perry, I like that we have a manager who will not manage by staring at a computer. But you're CRAZY if you think that Francona isn't WELL aware of what the statistics on in game situations say. And I wouldn't expect him to deviate very far/often. And that's one ofthe reasons he's generally successful.

I wish I could explain things like Tripods.

skatingtripods wrote:

Erie Warrior wrote:Is it possible these people are too smart for their own good?

The stats look at events in relative isolation- but don't consider them in full context. Let's say you lay down a bunt with your #3 guy. The inning results in one run.

You keep a one run lead into the 8th inning. But your setup man went out to a bar the night before and got his eye mashed in. You have to throw a guy who you normally wouldn't. Said guy gives up 2 runs and you lose by 1.

The stats would support the "sac bunts don't lead to more wins" idea, when in reality is was because of some D-bag name Tanner running his mouth at 2am.

Or is there an algorithm that takes into account meat-headedness?

I get what you're saying. The win expectancy tool at The Hardball Times can't take into account how good/bad a team's bullpen is, how good/bad the opposition offense is (though it does include "run environment"), and other variables. It's a general assessment taking into account years of research.

Overall, my issue isn't wholly with the bunt. It's with who was bunting. Keep in mind that he popped the first attempt up. If the catcher catches that ball, then it's truly a wasted out from your #3 hitter. Granted, at it's core, it's no different than striking out or popping up on the infield, but it's the principle of giving up an out.

I posted the numbers. The sac bunt would have raised the win expectancy .0042%. A base hit (to load the bases)/walk raises it by 15% and a strikeout/fly out lowers it by 11% and the worst-case scenario, a GIDP, lowers it by 22%. I didn't add this last night, but a base hit to tie the game raises it by 19%.

If it was a successful sacrifice, it does very little to help your chances of winning the game...but it doesn't hurt them either. Gillaspie butchered the play, so it worked out better than it should have.

Kipnis buying in and not putting himself above the team and doing what is asked of him is great. And I love how Tito has these guys playing. But it has very little to do with whether or not the manager asking our best hitter to bunt in that situation is the best decision. That being said, I agree with you that it's defensible and not a bad call in that situation.

On the other hand, if I can quote Jimmy Dugan on the matter: "Stop thinking with your tits,we want a big inning here."

peeker643 wrote:

skatingtripods wrote:

peeker643 wrote:There are situations where it's clearly a good idea. You know them when you see them.

When trailing in the late innings it's more palatable to me but I think there's more to it than just the inning, score and outs. I think you have to consider who's due up afterward, who they'll be facing, and a myriad of other variables including the defense you're playing against and a million other things.

Is their catcher a sieve like Santana? Is the pitcher splitter/sinker heavy? Is Cabbie in a mental and physical funk or locked in? What about the guy hitting after him should they choose to walk Cabby? Is the IBB even a consideration?

I think yesterday was about as 50/50 as it gets with a very slight lean toward bunting there. You've scored but one run in 6 innings in a 2-1 game. It wasn't 11-10, etc.

I didn't have an issue with it but I wouldn't have had an issue had Kipnis swung the bat either.

I know that's about as non-committal as it can get, but that does consider a load of variables.

ETA- Keep in mind these guys have bought into a 1-25 philosophy as well. Whereby each guy is no bigger or smaller than the next guy. Kipnis is still a younger player whose embraced that philosophy and who is also capable of bunting fairly well and putting pressure on a defense with the bunt.

motherscratcher wrote:Kipnis buying in and not putting himself above the team and doing what is asked of him is great. And I love how Tito has these guys playing. But it has very little to do with whether or not the manager asking our best hitter to bunt in that situation is the best decision. That being said, I agree with you that it's defensible and not a bad call in that situation.

On the other hand, if I can quote Jimmy Dugan on the matter: "Stop thinking with your tits,we want a big inning here."

I don't read the papers and I wasn't watching Tito's post game interview. Did he say he put the bunt on or whether Kipnis did it on his own?

motherscratcher wrote:Kipnis buying in and not putting himself above the team and doing what is asked of him is great. And I love how Tito has these guys playing. But it has very little to do with whether or not the manager asking our best hitter to bunt in that situation is the best decision. That being said, I agree with you that it's defensible and not a bad call in that situation.

On the other hand, if I can quote Jimmy Dugan on the matter: "Stop thinking with your tits,we want a big inning here."

I don't read the papers and I wasn't watching Tito's post game interview. Did he say he put the bunt on or whether Kipnis did it on his own?

That I don't know. Hadn't considered it actually, just assumed Tito put it on. I guess that would make a difference, wouldn't it.

If it was Kip's decision, I ain't mad. I'd just hope that Tito would talk with him about whether it was the decision or not, and when it's OK to pull that out.

Like I said, I don't hate the bunt in that situation, but having your best hitter give up a precious out with 2 on base in a close game ain't no little thing neither.

motherscratcher wrote:Like I said, I don't hate the bunt in that situation, but having your best hitter give up a precious out with 2 on base in a close game ain't no little thing neither.

Something that might be getting lost in all this was last year comparisons of Kipnis to Pedroia or at least players of Pedroia's caliber were being shot down. Now hes our best hitter (granted sometimes that doesnt mean much depending on whos around you) and is enciting bunting arguments .

He doesn't advance the runners with a bunt, it was bad.He hits into a DP, it's bad.He grounds out and the runners don't advance, it's bad.He pops up, lines out, K's or flies out and the runners don't advance, it's bad.He walks, it's good.He gets a hit, it's good.

Since none of this is pre-ordained, and the job got done, then it wasn't a bad move. We could easily be talking about Kipnis hitting into a rally killing DP.

If you pull into the I71 rest stop just outside of Grove City and stick your dick through the hole in the second from last stall, you might end up with a fantastic blow job. You might not get cauliflour dick, herpes, or the HIV. That doesn't mean it was a good decision.

We can retroactively go back and decide whether every decision made "worked" and was therefore "correct". That doesn't make any of them the smart move real time before we know the result.

We could bring in Jason Giambi to toss the 9th inning with a 1 run lead in game 7 of teh World Series. And he might strike out the side. Doesn't mean it was the "smart move".

Come to think of it, if that happens, I'll take it.

WiscTribeFan wrote:

skatingtripods wrote:

peeker643 wrote:There are situations where it's clearly a good idea. You know them when you see them.

He doesn't advance the runners with a bunt, it was bad.He hits into a DP, it's bad.He grounds out and the runners don't advance, it's bad.He pops up, lines out, K's or flies out and the runners don't advance, it's bad.He walks, it's good.He gets a hit, it's good.

Since none of this is pre-ordained, and the job got done, then it wasn't a bad move. We could easily be talking about Kipnis hitting into a rally killing DP.

motherscratcher wrote: They aren't going back through game logs and recording how many times a team sac bunted and whether that team won or not.

Sure they do. Sample size, yo.

No they don't, or if someone did it wouldn't mean anything.

Way they do know is how often a run scores when a team sacrifice bunts. And how often a team scores when they don't give up that out. And how often the team scores one run vs multiple runs, because that matters in context as well. Further down the line you get win expectancy. But things are generally translated into runs first.

motherscratcher wrote: They aren't going back through game logs and recording how many times a team sac bunted and whether that team won or not.

Sure they do. Sample size, yo.

No they don't, or if someone did it wouldn't mean anything.

Way they do know is how often a run scores when a team sacrifice bunts. And how often a team scores when they don't give up that out. And how often the team scores one run vs multiple runs, because that matters in context as well. Further down the line you get win expectancy. But things are generally translated into runs first.

What doesn't mean anything is a hand full of games where a bunt takes place and a team wins. You need a large sample size to see a trend and validate a statistical ethos. Historical game records are used to develop this trend. Regardless of if runs are calculated first, or last, or not at all, the numbers are based on past games.